6

Some time ago I started wondering: what if we create a new coin and use its Blockchain to store a website content?

Bitcoin is P2P, that way it is almost impossible to block bitcoin. Everything in the ledger is public and saved for eternity, would be good for some subreddits which were deleted recently.

What if the mining process would be just making backup of already existing specified social media websites?

Are there any similar projects, which could be used as a base?

  • 2
    Free as in speech, or free as in beer? – Nick ODell Jun 15 '15 at 22:30
  • both! :) But "free" from the title is about freedom of speech – noisy Jun 16 '15 at 15:12
  • Did you look at Cryptoschwartz? Based off ethereum – lajarre Jun 20 '15 at 11:01
3

You're looking for Freenet, a p2p plataform which is only different from your idea in the fact that, to avoid wasting disk space, Freenet deletes old and unpopular content.

  • If it has 'diskspace' issues, it's not using a distributed blockchain, is it? – Rudie Oct 16 '15 at 14:15
3

you might be interested to know that the bitcoin blockchain can already be used to store arbitrary data. for example the original whitepaper pdf that satoshi wrote explaining how bitcoin works has actually been uploaded to the blockchain. it was done using 948 outputs in a single transaction for a fee of 0.596175 btc ~ US$143.02 at the time i'm writing this. the whitepaper is only 180KB so the blockchain is not that cheap of a storage medium...

2
  1. Nobody will waste his disk space for storing blockchain.
  2. Nobody will spend money for mining blocks.
  3. It will be very easy and very cheap for dishonest person to "doublespend" such currency.
2

@amacilin's answer pretty much nailed it. But I wanted to counter a few such assertions /r/Bitcoin often makes about decentralised being better than centralised.

Recently someone said something to the effect of "Blockchain based storage/websites is the answer to the centralised server solutions, which have been around forever"

The thing is, centralised services have been around forever because:

  1. They work
  2. They work very well
  3. They're cheaper to maintain

I know this isn't the question you asked specifically, but I thought it prudent to answer since often the excitement of "can it be done?" trumps "should it be done?.

It's also pretty prudent to question how moderation would be done. Even if if you're a staunch anti-censorship/moderation supporter, I don't know how one would ever sort through the crap without needing some moderation.

Essentially what I'm saying is the "issues" with centralised servers are probably not worse than the problems with using a decentralised service. And this isn't even considering the privacy implications!

  • 1
    Reddit has 2TB of stored data, and 240 servers. (source) None of that gets easier when you move to a decentralized model. – Nick ODell Jun 16 '15 at 6:25
  • @NickODell: this is right, but the truth is, that no one needs to store 2TB of data. If reddit would like to decentralize, it will need a 2000 users which will keep 1GB of data. This is big, however people waste much more on their computers. Moderation can be made by voting and reputation system (like on SO). If something will be deleted by moderator it will be deleted from default "enabled view", but always you could diggout what was there previously. Like in git... you have state of all workdir on HEAD which is default view, but you always can check each commit. – noisy Jun 16 '15 at 15:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.